from the worth-asking dept

As we've discussed in the past, works created by the federal government are automatically in the public domain under section 105 of US copyright law:

Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.

So... that would suggest that musical works created by the federal government should be in the public domain, right? And... according to the Times of London, the performance of the Star Spangled Banner by Beyonce at President Obama's inauguration, was actually pre-recorded by the Marine Corp. Band, and then lip synced by Beyonce. Last we checked, the Marine Corp. Band is a part of the US government, meaning that recordings it creates should be in the public domain.

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act. I hereby request the following records:

A copy of the backing track used during Beyonce's Inauguration performance, as well as copies of other backing tracks created in preparation for Inauguration events, whether or not they were actually used.

The existence of these documents was disclosed by a spokeswoman for the Marine Corp Band to The Times of London

The performance by Beyonce could still be covered by copyright, since she is not an employee of the government, but that backing track almost certainly should be in the public domain. Of course, it's unclear to me if, even if the track is in the public domain, the federal government has an obligation to hand it over as part of FOIA request, but it seems like it's at least reasonable to ask.

from the security-risks-abound dept

CNN got a lot of attention on inauguration day as being the online site of choice for people to watch the streaming video of the events. However, as reader Jim Wood alerts us, many people are probably unaware that they agreed to do so by sharing their bandwidth via a P2P application. Now, first off, I actually think this is a good general use of P2P and have wondered in the past why more streaming apps don't make use of bandwidth sharing P2P in a similar manner. However, it does appear that there are many, many issues with how this was implemented. CNN told people they had to install Octoshape Grid Delivery to watch the video -- and it turns out that wasn't true. You only had to install it if you wanted to make use of the more efficient bandwidth sharing. Also, it doesn't appear that it was clearly explained to users at all what they were agreeing to. This is especially problematic at a time when more and more ISPs are using broadband caps that often include upstream traffic. Users might not realize at all that they were giving up a significant amount of their bandwidth.

Separately, the EULA for the software contains some totally ridiculous clauses, including: "You may not collect any information about communication in the network of computers that are operating the Software or about the other users of the Software by monitoring, interdicting or intercepting any process of the Software." Yes, if you install the software, you can no longer monitor your own traffic usage, at least according to those terms.

There are also serious concerns about potential security problems associated with the software, since the software can automatically be activated by visiting any "Octoshape-enabled" website. That seems like a zombie-scammer's dream setup: a secretive P2P network that people don't even know they have that can use up a ton of bandwidth, can't be sniffed (legally) and uses an unexpected port.

Again, there are definite useful ways to make use of P2P to spread out the bandwidth, but it needs to be done in a much more transparent, reasonable and safe manner. Unfortunately, this implementation doesn't seem to have done that -- and millions of trusting CNN users may now run into problems because of that.

from the legally-questionable dept

Against Monopoly points out that the Inauguration Committee apparently sold the broadcast rights of the Inauguration Concert (held this past Sunday night) to HBO (for a six month period). Because of that, HBO has been going around demanding all videos of the event be pulled down from YouTube. This appears to include privately filmed clips as well -- which seems pretty questionable. Sure, HBO probably wants to do more with the video, but is a short clip filmed from a camera phone really going to diminish HBO's ability to profit off this historic event? It would seem that such clips would only increase the value to HBO, allowing the company to do more with the full professional video.

from the no-i-can't-hear-you-now dept

Apparently there are going to be a lot of people in Washington, DC, next month, for Barack Obama's inauguration. With up to 4 million visitors coming to DC, a city with a population of 1.1 million, there's the potential for a logistical mess. But at least one group is getting out ahead of things: the nation's wireless operators, which want to assure everybody that they're beefing up capacity ahead of the event... just like they do before every Super Bowl and other events where there are predictable swells in network traffic. So, even if you aren't traveling to Washington for the inauguration, rest assured that the country's operators are looking out for you, just in case. And, of course, that they're not missing out on any chance for some PR -- even if it really just highlights their own capacity limitations. One question, though: will any of them come back after the event to detail just how many calls didn't go through on their networks during the inauguration because of capacity constraints?